Le lundi 11 Juin 2007 15:08, Olaf Greve a écrit :
> Hiya,
>
> >I'd recommend some of the Still Life work of Joel Peter Witkin for
>
> stretching the envelope! :-)
>
> >I dislike the Wikipaedia definition - for me a Still Life is an
>
> artistic arrangement and depiction
>
> >of that which was once alive - i.e. it has been 'stilled.'
>
> Hehehe, well, as mentioned: "at your own risk" I'll cut the
> photographers some slack. :)
> The more traditional definition seems to wind down to "a scene of non-
> alive objects, arranged by the photographer/painter, where the
> composition and lighting forms the main focus of attention", or
> something like that. I have to admit having looked up the "proper"
> definition myself too, as I wasn't certain as to whether the presence
> of organic things (fruit, animals, flowers, ...) was required or not.
I may be wrong, but I've always thought that a classical still life should
appeal to our 5 senses. Hence, the placement of a music instrument in XVIth
century still lifes, to 'simulate' hearing. Along with food (taste), fabrics
(touch), jewellery (vision), and perfume bottles (smell). And, to top it all,
it should tell us how life is important, while at the same time reminding us
that there's always an end to it (that's why you commonly see a skull and/or
a crucifix in a classical still).
That raises the challenge, doesn't it ?
--
Manuel Viet
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|